当特权边界下降时会发生什么?最强烈反对婚姻平等的县结婚率下降

IF 1.8 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Social Currents Pub Date : 2023-11-07 DOI:10.1177/23294965231212443
Rory McVeigh, William Carbonaro, Paige Ambord
{"title":"当特权边界下降时会发生什么?最强烈反对婚姻平等的县结婚率下降","authors":"Rory McVeigh, William Carbonaro, Paige Ambord","doi":"10.1177/23294965231212443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From 1998 to 2008, conservative activists placed initiatives on ballots in 30 states seeking preemptively to ban marriage for LGBTQ couples. They succeeded in every state, commonly with lopsided vote tallies. We examine what has happened to marriage rates in communities where those battles took place, as beliefs pertaining to marriage equality became more progressive in the nation as a whole and as state-level bans soon fell under the weight of state legislation and state and federal judicial rulings. Counterintuitively, we find that marriage rates have declined the most in communities where opposition to marriage equality was strongest in the early 2000s—so much so, in fact, that they are now indistinguishable from marriage rates in communities where opposition to marriage equality was weaker.","PeriodicalId":44139,"journal":{"name":"Social Currents","volume":"326 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Happens When Privilege Boundaries are Falling? Declining Marriage Rates in Counties that Most Strongly Resisted Marriage Equality\",\"authors\":\"Rory McVeigh, William Carbonaro, Paige Ambord\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23294965231212443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From 1998 to 2008, conservative activists placed initiatives on ballots in 30 states seeking preemptively to ban marriage for LGBTQ couples. They succeeded in every state, commonly with lopsided vote tallies. We examine what has happened to marriage rates in communities where those battles took place, as beliefs pertaining to marriage equality became more progressive in the nation as a whole and as state-level bans soon fell under the weight of state legislation and state and federal judicial rulings. Counterintuitively, we find that marriage rates have declined the most in communities where opposition to marriage equality was strongest in the early 2000s—so much so, in fact, that they are now indistinguishable from marriage rates in communities where opposition to marriage equality was weaker.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Currents\",\"volume\":\"326 3\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Currents\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965231212443\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Currents","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965231212443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从1998年到2008年,保守派活动人士在30个州发起投票,寻求先发制人地禁止LGBTQ伴侣结婚。他们在每个州都取得了成功,通常是在票数不平衡的情况下。随着有关婚姻平等的信念在整个国家变得更加进步,随着州一级的禁令很快在州立法和州及联邦司法裁决的重压下被推翻,我们研究了发生这些斗争的社区的结婚率发生了什么变化。与我们的直觉相反,我们发现,在21世纪初反对婚姻平等最强烈的社区,结婚率下降得最多——事实上,下降得如此之多,以至于现在的结婚率与反对婚姻平等最弱的社区的结婚率几乎没有区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What Happens When Privilege Boundaries are Falling? Declining Marriage Rates in Counties that Most Strongly Resisted Marriage Equality
From 1998 to 2008, conservative activists placed initiatives on ballots in 30 states seeking preemptively to ban marriage for LGBTQ couples. They succeeded in every state, commonly with lopsided vote tallies. We examine what has happened to marriage rates in communities where those battles took place, as beliefs pertaining to marriage equality became more progressive in the nation as a whole and as state-level bans soon fell under the weight of state legislation and state and federal judicial rulings. Counterintuitively, we find that marriage rates have declined the most in communities where opposition to marriage equality was strongest in the early 2000s—so much so, in fact, that they are now indistinguishable from marriage rates in communities where opposition to marriage equality was weaker.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Currents
Social Currents SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Social Currents, the official journal of the Southern Sociological Society, is a broad-ranging social science journal that focuses on cutting-edge research from all methodological and theoretical orientations with implications for national and international sociological communities. The uniqueness of Social Currents lies in its format. The front end of every issue is devoted to short, theoretical, agenda-setting contributions and brief, empirical and policy-related pieces. The back end of every issue includes standard journal articles that cover topics within specific subfields of sociology, as well as across the social sciences more broadly.
期刊最新文献
Coming Out Queer: Sexual and Romantic Exploration and Identity Development of LGBQ+ College Students Returning from Prison to a Changed City: How Does Gentrification Shape the Employment and Housing Opportunities of Returning Citizens? Fight the Power? How Black Adults’ Racial Capital Associates With Their Political Activities Rent Burden and Demographic Change Among Veterans: A Research Brief “A Future for White Children”: Examining Family Ideologies of White Extremist Groups at the Intersection of Race and Gender
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1